Kong v. Gonzales ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1786
    CATHERINE PONDJI KONG,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A75-561-848)
    Submitted:   January 17, 2007              Decided:   March 1, 2007
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steffanie J. Lewis, Alexandru I. Craciunescu, THE INTERNATIONAL
    BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter
    D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy
    Director, Barry J. Pettinato, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
    Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Catherine Pondji Kong, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
    seeks to appeal the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings.
    To the extent that Kong seeks to appeal the Board’s refusal to
    exercise its authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack
    jurisdiction to review this decision.    See Ali v. Gonzales, 
    448 F.3d 515
    , 518 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases).         As to Kong’s
    claim that the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion to
    reopen because of changed circumstances, we have reviewed the
    record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse
    its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.          See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a) (2006); Stewart v. INS, 
    181 F.3d 587
    , 595 (4th Cir.
    1999).   Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.    We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1786

Filed Date: 3/1/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021